1. Writing Discussion

2. The Sections of the Scientific Paper Content Section of Paper Summary in a nutshellAbstract Description of the problemIntroduction Solution way of the problemMaterials and Methods Findings to solve the problemResults Interpretation of the findingsDiscussion Mentioning the contributorsAcknowledgments (optional) Used referencesLiterature Cited Extra InformationAppendices (optional)

3. The hardest section to write Many paper are rejected by journal editors because of a faulty Discussion Need to convince the Reviewers and the Editor that our work merits publication in an exceedingly clear and concise writing Selling point “Publish or Perish”

4. What do editors and reviewers want? Originality Relevance to the audience Appropriate experimental design and methodology Data presentation Appropriate statistical analysis Thorough and logical discussion of results Importance of the results to the Scientific Field and the Readership Excitement/ “wow” Readability, clarity of writing, and grammar

5. What to write in Discussion Should discuss the principles, relationships and generalization shown by the Results Conclusions and future perspectives

6. What to write in Discussion Statement of principal findings Strengths and weaknesses of the study Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers Unanswered questions and future research Go easy on the last two

7. Order your Discussion Should follow the Results section – Do not attempt to interpret the results in Results section. The order of discussing results should parallel the order of presentation of the results Section headings may be useful if discussing complex data

8. Discussion The Introduction moved from general to specific. The discussion moves from specific to general.

9. Elements of the discussion section… 1.Key finding (answer to the question(s) asked in Intro.) Supporting explanation, details (lines of evidence) Possible mechanisms or pathways Is this finding novel? 2.Key secondary findings 3.Context Compare your results with other people ’ s results Compare your results with existing paradigms Explain unexpected or surprising findings 4.Strengths and limitations 5.What ’ s next Recommended confirmatory studies ( “ needs to be confirmed ” ) Unanswered questions Future directions 6.The “ so what? ” : implicate, speculate, recommend Clinical implications of basic science findings 7.Strong conclusion

10. Verb tense Verb Tenses (active!): Past, when referring to study details, results, analyses, and background research: We found that They lost more weight than Subjects may have experienced Miller et al. found Present, when talking about what the data suggest … The greater weight loss suggests The explanation for this difference is not clear. Potential explanations include

11. Pay attention to tenses What you, or others, did in the past should be stated in the past tense (e.g. data were collected...."). Events or objects that continue to happen or exist can be described in the present tense (e.g., "in this paper, I examine....... The data reject the hypothesis that......). Tense consistency.

12. Factual relationships between results Purpose of the Discussion is to show the relationships among observed facts. Support your interpretations with references Support your interpretations with data Do not overinterpret the results – e.g. stating that a technique is “safe and effective” on the basis of a single case report

13. Interpret major findings Paragraphs should start with a short statement of the importance of the results. Use this statement to set up the ideas you want to focus on in interpreting your results and relating them to the literature.

14. Compare with previous results Comment as to whether the results are in line with prior studies – If not, an attempt should be made to explain the discrepancies. Point out any exceptions or any lack of correlation and define unsettled points 4 Never take the risk trying to cover up data that do not quite fit – “Almost reached significance at the 5% level” usually means a selective interpretation of results.

15. Limitations of the study 4 Describe limitations of the study – Preferably in a separate paragraph Do not start Discussion section by writing about problems with your methods If there is save them for later

16. Theoretical implications Should state why the report is important Discuss the theoretical implications of your work Discuss any possible practical applications Suggest ideas for further work

17. When citing a reference, focus on the ideas, not the authors Literature citations should be parenthetical, rather than in the body of the sentence: “… "growth rates of > 80 cm are common in populations in Alberta (Marx 1982).” ✔ “…, Marx (1982) found growth rates of >80 cm to be common in populations in Alberta.” ✖

18. Better to show than just telling Rather than a result is interesting or significant, show them how it is interesting or significant. The large difference in mean size between population C and population D is particularly interesting," ✖ Mean size generally varied among populations by only a few centimetres, but mean size in populations C and D differed by 25 cm. ✔

19. Avoid direct statements of primacy “This is the first report of…” or “This has not previously been described…” Add little to a manuscript otherwise deemed worthy of publication Border on the absurd This is the first description of percutaneous biopsy of a left patellar angiosarcoma in a 41 year old commercial fisherman. ✖

20. Try to make it concise Discussion sections are offen too long and verbose The simplest statements evoke the most wisdom; verbose language and fancy technical words are used to convey shallow thought.

21. Avoid verbiage 4 Short words 4 Short sentences 4 Short paragraphs 4 No jargon 4 No abbreviations 4 Prefer active to passive 4 Be careful with slang The best English in scientific writing is to make the point in the fewest possible words. scientific writing is not literary writing

22. Avoid verbiage 4 Avoid excessive use of the indefinite pronoun "it". –"It would thus appear that" can be replaced by "apparently"; –"It is evident that" by "evidently"; 4 Other commonly used phrases such as: "It will be seen that"; "It is interesting to note that" and "It is thought that", can be left out. 4 Shorter and more familiar words –Use "to" instead of "in order to" –Use "clear" instead of "unblemished”

23. Avoid verbiage 4 Remove value judgements: “Surprising”, “interesting”, “unfortunately” have no place in a scientific paper. 4 Avoid “we believe”, “we feel”, “we concluded”, etc. 4 Use the active voice whenever possible. It is usually less wordy and unambiguous. The fact that such processes are under strict cerebellar control is demonstrated by our work in this area. ✖ Our work demonstrates that such processes are under strict cerebellar control. ✔

24. End with a Conclusion State the significance of the work Give your evidence for each conclusion State it as clearly as possible It should not be a summary of the work done or a virtual duplication of the abstract Be carefull about wrong conclusions

25. Avoid wrong Conclusion A biology professor trained a flea for many months to respond to verbal command ‘jump’. The professor decided to determine the location of hearing receptor. Professor removed the legs of the flea one at a time Finally, with the removal of the last leg of flea, the flea did not response to the command “Jump” and the flea remained motionless

26. Conclusion “When the legs of a flea are removed, the flea can no longer hear. Therefore, the locations of hearing receptors are in legs.”

27. THANK YOU VERY MUCH….